Proposed Slogan for John Kerry

I have no doubt that a democrat would be focused on stamping out terrorism, though I honestly believe that their methods would be a lot less aggressive, much more reliant on diplomacy, and overall less resolute if faced with waning popularity. This may be the approach that you favor, but my central argument is that this approach never works when dealing with madmen (I include Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and Hussein in that group). In the field of democratic candidates (with the exception of Lieberman, who most democrats regarded as a republican in disquise), I got zero sense that any of them had any resoluteness when it came to waging war. Despite the popularity of it, the war in Afghanistan was purely a voluntary war mostly waged by the US. The Bush administration led the charge, sold it to the American people to the point of unanimity, and the UN was glad to jump on board. I seriously doubt that a democratic president would've been as comfortable using force in Afghanistan when the Taliban was not directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. For a current democrat to make a major commitment of military force, one of only two conditions have to apply: (1) The target country has to be directly involved in an attack on America (The Taliban providing safe haven to Al Qaeda wouldn't have qualified); and (2) There has to be a major humanitarian disaster (Rwanda and other African countries would've qualifed ahead of Afghanistan).

Again, I asked for substantiated claims of civil rights abuses. Most if not all of those detained were violating their visas or flagged for deportation in the first place, and their detentions took place during the immediate aftermath of 9/11, during a heightened state of alert, when it was uncertain if there were other attacks planned, and when it wasn't known who else living in the US colluded with the hijackers. The only knowledge of the hijackers that we had at the time was that they were predominantly Saudi nationals operating under aliases. The only American citizen that remains detained is Jose Padilla, who at the time had changed his name to Abdullah al-Muhajir, and who was alleged to be conspiring to commit a terrorist act. His case is going to the Supreme Court next month, but there is already precedent previously upheld by the Supreme Court: during WWII several Germans (one of whom was an American citizen) were detained as "enemy combatants" for their alleged plan to carry out sabatoge in the US.

We have to admit that Ashcroft's primary responsibility following 9/11 of preventing future attacks is the most difficult job on the planet now. The Patriot Act, which was passed overwhelmingly by both Republicans and Democrats provides some help in carrying out an otherwise impossible task. And, for all the people who've complained about the Patriot Act, I've yet to hear a good alternative that would allow law enforcement individuals to prevent a crime from being committed instead of solving a crime after it's already been committed.

Fair enough. But, given the choice between a bigger deficit with a mild recession vs a mild deficit with a bigger recession (which definitely would've happened had we done the typical wartime response and raised taxes as you suggest), I'll take the bigger deficit anyday. Not only do recessions affect the general populace more profoundly than deficits, but the biggest complaint against deficits (that they correlate to rising long term interest rates) has been proven false. Remember also that tax cuts are only responsible for a third of the predicted swing from surplus to deficit. The vast majority of the deficit was due to the recession.

Yet another illusion sold by Kerry as a "major" problem created by Bush. In fact, according to The Economist, "outsourced jobs are responsible for well under 1% of those signed up as unemployed. And the jobs lost to outsourcing pale in comparison with the number of jobs lost and created each month at home." The outsourcing red herring is simply more populist BS churned out by the Kerry campaign.

The only way to rid the world of terrorists is to create the environment where people who are poor and devoid of any political voice can finally find opportunities to advance in a democratic state. Bush's plan is to introduce democratic change throughout the Middle East, with Iraq and Afghanistan as the springboard, is the boldest vision since the Marshall Plan. I applaud him, and would rather have him reelected and see his plan through than to see Kerry win and have it all rolled back.

 

I'd like to ask everyone to just ignore him. He's obviously a young kid and a foolish one at that. He likes to throw out unsubstantiated claims and he likes to steer the threads down moronic paths (this thread is a good example).

Let's do everyone a favor and ignore him, pat him on the head, give him a lollipop, and nudge him away from the adult's table and towards the jungle gym.

 

You get a gold star for personal attacks.

Hmm, you must be a republican, yes?

 

Fair enough, how about these quotes:
"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.
The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992"
...
"They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend."
...
"The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers."

These are the military cuts republicans have audacity and indecency to critisize Kerry for.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
Read the whole article, it reviews complete Kerry's record on defense votes. You wanted specificity, it's as specific as it gets. Kerry's record of course is not flawless after 20 years in congress, but claims that he is weak on defense is republican BS

According to webster dictionary Socialism is:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=socialism

Neither Kerry nor DNC advocates collective or government ownership of the means of production and distribution, or abondonment of private property in America.

As I said before, I know socialism, I know communism, you do not seem to know what it means. Kerry is neither a communist nor socialist.

 

I doubt if the poster meant scocialism in it's pure form, the definition you've quoted. However, from the same dictionary:

state socialism

: an economic system with limited socialist characteristics introduced by usually gradual political action

 

What is with the consistency of these attacks on Kerry? Is cdbernn really Maverick in drag?

Rumors were spread a month or so ago that Kerry had an illicit affair with an intern (turned out to be false, just like the doctored photograph of Kerry with Jane Fonda). But before the facts were known, Maverick managed to insinuate that if Kerry did indeed have an affair with the intern, then it was logical to assume that he not only had sex with her, but that he "could have raped her". That "rape could not be ruled out". No one mentioned "rape", but Mav managed to fabricate a felony out of what was proven to be not even a case of consensual infidelity.

Now cdburn uses words to blend not very subtlety Kerry and "a guy that is arrested for mass murder" in the same sentence.

cdburn claims to have been a part of the Democratic Party at one time. This is laughable. I guess "she" was a Democrat when David Duke was in Rabbinical school studying the Torah.

There are good and bad Democrats. There are good and bad Republicans. There are no decent politicians or human beings that are respectful of this kind of disgusting negative campaigning. The country is sick of it. The "Plumbers" were supposed to have been flushed away in 1973. But here we are, 31 years later, and the vile taste of CREEP (Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President) and its "dirty tricks" policies are still alive and well in the minds of the worst and most polluted filthy dark corner of the Republican Party.

What sewer do these people crawl out of? What rocks do they sleep under at night?

Sickening.

RS

 

How did this photo get circulated? RS7 suggests that there is in existence " "dirty tricks" policies... still alive and well in the minds of the worst and most polluted filthy dark corner of the Republican Party." What a bunch of crap.

The photo in question was put on the internet for just two-hours and then deleted by its creator, Richard Taylor.

It turns out the photo was "copied by Vietnam veterans who oppose Mr. Kerry's Democratic presidential bid." The creator, Richard Taylor? He has no ties to the Republican party whatsoever.

Now here's the important part: The photo was Taylor's way of emphasizing what historically took place. There is a "genuine Associated Press photo that exists showing Mr. Kerry seated behind Miss fonda at a 1971 rally. "

Further, there is the "Kerry-Fonda collaboration in the so-called "Winter Soldier" project, which accused U.S. troops of widespread atrocities in Vietnam."

 

I saw a photo of Churchill seated next to Stalin at a meeting, that must mean that Churchill shared the exact same views as Stalin.

Heck, I even saw a photo of Bush standing next to the leader of socialist countries, so Bush must be a communist (cause ya know that socialism is just really communism lite).

This nonsense that because Kerry was anti Vietnam war, and because he was at a rally that Jane Fonda was at, that he and Jane Fonda are somehow ideologically linked on all issues beyond a desire to see the war end is pure bullcrap.

Oh, that accusation of "widespread" attrocities in Vietnam....that is pretty much an accepted reality now.

In the words of Lt. Calley when he was accused of lying, "What, My Lai?"

 

Sickening is right, RS7, only the perpetrators are the Dems as well as the liberal press. Get your facts straight on John F'ing Kerry as well as the Democratic BS publicity machine:
-----------------------------------------------
According to a poll conducted last week by the Andreas McKenna Research group, a whopping 60 percent of 800 registered voters surveyed said they thought global terrorists would back John Kerry in this year’s election.

Moreover, Newsmax.com reported last Saturday that officials of terrorist-friendly North Korea are “stalling negotiations on dismantling their nuclear program, hinting that they hope to get a better deal from the U.S. if a Democrat wins in November.”

This is very telling since Kerry has already proven – much like Bill Clinton and Al Gore did – that he’s nothing more than a spineless enemy appeaser, as evidenced by his daily flip-flops on the war on terror, his voting against every major weapons system, his serial gutting of intelligence and defense spending, as well as his anti-American rants upon returning from his brief stint in Vietnam.

Ironically, the Kerry campaign is currently sporting their latest placard, “John Kerry: The Real Deal” for the Massachusetts Senator’s newest anti-Bush smear campaign. However, judging from what is only beginning to be unearthed about his willful lies and distortions about the Bush Administration, Kerry has quickly become the “The Raw Deal.”

Just the fact that Ted Kennedy (who accused Bush of “concocting a war in Texas for political gain”) and Howard Dean (who, like Kerry, still shows inane support for Saddam Hussein and confederate flags) both endorse Kerry is actually a testament against Kerry, who has proven every day to be more unfit than ever for the U.S. presidency.

Consequently, Kerry has now chosen to launch pre-emptive strikes against Bush, choosing instead to take the very low road of Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and Al Gore in their sullied tradition of vintage Democrat gutter politics.

As Mort Kondracke, editor of Roll Call, observed: “The level of attacks coming from the Democrats so far outweigh anything coming from the Republicans, it’s laughable.”

Because in Kerry’s never-ending crusade to score political points, his media spin-doctors are already willing to aid and abet their most liberal Democrat as he continues his unconscionably politicizing of the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history: 9/11.

KERRY TAKES HOWARD DEAN’S BATON IN INCITING BUSH HATRED

Without question, Kerry’s sinister anti-Bush media cabal is spewing out their usual leftist propaganda for the Democratic Party, all in the hopes of ousting the man they hate the most – President George W. Bush, who has done more for the war on terror and national security than any of the enemy-appeasing Democrats combined.

As usual, however – and as shown in the following article by the New York Times, which recently endorsed Kerry, Democrats once again take center stage and are showcased as the party of supposedly take-their-word-for-it credibility by the media elite – juxtaposed to The Times’ liberal slant of routinely manufactured GOP improprieties.

In effect, Times reporter Jim Rutenberg actually paints Kerry as the consummate victim, who supposedly felt compelled to “immediately” respond to Bush’s alleged “attack ad:”

The move seemed intended as much to push back against Mr. Bush as it did to signal to Democrats — and potential donors — that Mr. Kerry will not hesitate to respond to attacks, as Democratic candidates have done in past presidential campaigns.

In his latest smear-a-thon against Bush, Kerry repeatedly claims that Bush is “misleading America,” while Kerry is actually the very one who consistently hoodwinks the American people about his pathetic voting record and anti-war background.

Entitled “Kerry, Focus of Attack Ad, Reacts With One of His Own,” Rutenberg should have re-named his March 13 headline: “Kerry, Who Has Consistently Attacked Bush, Reacts With One Of His Own, After Whining Like a Big Cry Baby About Bush’s Alleged Attacks.”

What The Times fails to realize is that there’s nothing wrong with the Bush Administration telling the truth about Kerry’s misleading record, despite the fact that Bush has remained silent all this time. Kerry continues to lie about and distort Bush’s record – thanks to questionable funding from his very rich wife, Teresa Heinz, heiress to the Heinz ketchup fortune. Teresa Heinz recently spearheaded Peaceful Tomorrows, a Far Left group of 9/11 families that John and Teresa Heinz Kerry financed – and reportedly coached – to work the media circuit in a feeble attempt to stop Bush’s ads.

Undoubtedly, the Kerrys are getting a lot of free publicity from their Democratic friends in the media, who will likely never expose Kerry’s campaign ties to soft money.